From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Barry Margolin Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Elisp Tutorial dumb question -- but I thought I better doublecheck ?? Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 00:59:02 -0400 Organization: Symantec Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1177479288 28037 80.91.229.12 (25 Apr 2007 05:34:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2007 05:34:48 +0000 (UTC) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Apr 25 07:34:47 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Hga9K-0003W9-BJ for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 07:34:42 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HgaEu-0002iP-3e for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 25 Apr 2007 01:40:28 -0400 Original-Path: shelby.stanford.edu!newshub.stanford.edu!postnews.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Original-NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 23:59:02 -0500 Original-Newsgroups: gnu.emacs.help Mail-Copies-To: nobody User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X) X-Copies-To: never Original-Lines: 46 Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.34.108.171 Original-X-Trace: sv3-lE2ratyBsDZvHCwn/rjRBWK/MAKz3yZPrDdV0T9U9D5+/Yt/DYiRDluZKzTZOTOAMTbVsvqCa1J3MrJ!P+vw1sx0usA7z59uF9PUs5lGN6hbC8suB9VlF7Aj0t2Ny9pZ9UAPThbzsjmDDZCD6WW6Z99XM2Cm!EWkj7UZa4wmGOidhwJz1nnIkCXwbhhb8hHnDi+X2gw== Original-X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.34 Original-Xref: shelby.stanford.edu gnu.emacs.help:147537 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:43140 Archived-At: In article , William Case wrote: > Hi; > > I am working my way through the elisp tutorial > at > :http://www.linuxselfhelp.com/gnu/emacs-lisp-intro/html_mono/emacs-lisp-intro. > html#Writing%20Defuns > > Section 3.3 on defuns gives an algorithm for the basic defun as: > > defun > (defun function-name (arguments ... ) > "optional-documentation ..." > (interactive argument-passing-info) > body ... ) > > and later gives an algorithm for the lambda anonymous function as: > C.4.3 A lambda Expression: Useful Anonymity > > (lambda (arg-variables...) > [documentation-string] > [interactive-declaration] > body-forms...) > > The differences seem trivial, but can I re-write the lambda algorithm in > terms of the defun algorithm for myself such that: > > lambda > (lambda (arguments ... ) > "optional-documentation ..." > (interactive argument-passing-info) > body ... ) > > or would I be missing some significant difference ? Are you asking whether [documentation-string] is the same as "optional-documentation ..."? Yes, they are just different notations for the same thing. -- Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***